A WITNESS ON TRIAL

July 20, 2009

By Charles Jackson, Legal Intern with the Documentation Center of Cambodia
and Candidate for J.D. 2011, Northwestern University School of Law

The ECCC’s ability to contribute toward education and reconciliation was
apparent today as hundreds of students and adults were welcomed as guests of
the court. Before proceedings began, ECCC representatives also took time to
explain the basic mechanics of the court to the crowd, so that they might
better understand what they were about to witness.

Trial proceedings picked up with more testimony from Him Huy, a former
prison guard at S-21 who had been under the command of the accused, Kaing
Guek Eav (alias Duch), during the Khmer Rouge era. Before any questions were
asked, the witness was reminded by the court, after a request by the
prosecution, that he had the right to refuse answering any questions that
were self-incriminating.

The day began with questions from the prosecution focused on daily
operations at S-21. While working at the prison, Him Huy had the key
responsibility to assist with the reception and processing of incoming
prisoners. When asked where his instructions came from, the witness
testified that he took orders directly from his superior, Brother Hor, but
that Duch made all of the decisions about who was to be arrested,
interrogated, and executed. The witness also gave testimony that seemed to
indicate Duch may have helped develop propaganda to fuel support for the
Khmer Rouge regime. Regarding the treatment of Vietnamese prisoners, Him Huy
testified that he had seen many of these prisoners forced to dress in their
soldier uniforms and photographed while standing in the street, and that
their confessions from interrogations were publically broadcast on the
radio. Much of this testimony proved beneficial to the prosecution, which
has sought to portray Duch's role in the Khmer Rouge regime as an active
instigator of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Deputy Co-Prosecutor, William Smith, also asked a series of questions
related to the relationship between Duch and the staff at S-21. Him Huy
described Duch’s management style as “meticulous and firm,” saying Duch
decided everything and the entire staff strictly obeyed him. The witness
explained that the S-21 staff felt threatened by Duch and obeyed him as best
they could for fear of their lives. The witness went on to say that he was
so frightened he did not even think it was safe to get married because it
increased the likelihood of dying. He said that when one person was accused
of being an enemy, he and his entire family typically were killed, so he
thought it was safer to be alone. He finished by saying that, even today in
court, Duch’s presence scares him.

After the Co-Prosecutors concluded, it was the Civil Party’s turn to put
questions to the witness. Alain Werner from Civil Party Group 1 began with a
series of questions further delving into Duch’s involvement with
discretionary decision-making at S-21. But the focus quickly shifted away
from Duch and onto the witness’s criminal culpability when Silke Studzinsky,
with Group 2, began asking him about his own involvement with the tortures
and executions. Trying to emphasize the human element of the testimony,
Studzinsky began her questions by reminding the witness that victims were in
the court and asked him to remember his responsibility to contribute toward
reconciliation.

Lawyers from Groups 2 and 3 solicited further descriptions of detainee
treatment from the witness, who affirmed that prisoners were housed and
tortured in their underwear and children were killed along with their
parents. Hong Kim Suon with Group 4 concluded the Civil Party’s time by
framing the witness as a docile subordinate of Duch implementing his orders.
When asked how he received his instructions for incoming detainees, Him Huy
said that he would receive a list of names that Duch put together. When
asked why he implemented orders so blindly, Him Huy reiterated the fear that
Duch imposed on S-21, saying that one mistake would have cost him his life.

Before the defense began their questioning, Duch gave a statement concerning
his response to the witness’s testimony. Although equivocal, Duch said that
Him Huy’s testimony was “basically true…although there are some small
omissions…but they don’t matter”. Most significantly, Duch accepted
responsibility by saying that all of Him Huy’s crimes resulted from
following Duch’s orders.

Despite the gesture by Duch to assume superior responsibility, the defense
spent their time with the witness trying to frame an analogy between the
witness and the accused. In response to defense counsel Roux’s questioning,
the witness testified to being in charge of 11 to 12 people and that, in his
role as a superior in that group, he implemented orders to transport
detainees from S-21 to Choeung Ek for execution. Roux finished by asking the
witness if he agreed that the Khmer Rouge movement was so successful because
everyone was blindly implementing orders from the Central Committee. Him Huy
agreed. Although Roux did not say so, his questioning probably left the
court pondering the circumstances of both the witness (Him Huy) and the
defendant (Duch). By showing that both Him Huy and Duch regularly acted as
intermediaries, taking orders from superiors and implementing them through
subordinates, Roux left one wondering why the two held such different roles
in the eyes of the court and the public.